Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Man of Good Character is Not a Classic Rapist - Judge Michael Mettyear sums up watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    That's probably what the judge meant, but it's not what he said. He said "you simply couldn't resist" [raping her!] which unfortunately can be misinterpreted as "poor you, you didn't really have a choice" and possibly "I totally understand where you're coming from". A judge really should really avoid inviting that kind of misunderstanding.
    I don't accept this. Taking lines of the judge's sentencing remarks and looking at them in isolation is not very helpful really.

    It is true to say that the defendant could not resist. That is why he did what he did. The judge also said that the defendant had "...just lost control of normal restraint." The judge also described the event as "a terrible mistake."

    I don't see any evidence that the judge appears to 'approve' of what happened.

    The judge may be going so far as showing an understanding of how such situations occur. But then, 22+ years on the bench and god knows how long in practice beforehand will do that to you.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    I don't accept this. Taking lines of the judge's sentencing remarks and looking at them in isolation is not very helpful really.
    I agree - I'm fine with the rest of his sentencing. (That's why I assume it's a poor choice of words rather than a display of actual sympathy for a rapist.)

    It is true to say that the defendant could not resist.
    I disagree with that. It is true to say that the defendant did not resist his desire. But it is not obvious why he did not resist his desire. Was he unable to?* Or was it impossible for him to? (In both cases "couldn't" would be correct.) Did he choose not to?** (Then "couldn't" would not be correct.) Those are very different scenarios that carry different shades of blame.

    EG
    * he was severely inebriated and therefore mentally impaired
    v
    ** he thought he could get away with it
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 48:13)
    Where do they find our judges?
    In pools of experienced practitioners who applied for the job.

    What is going through the heads of people who decide all our judges are idiots on the basis of a few lines in a buzzfeed article?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 48:13)
    You don't see the problem in a judge calling a rapist a man of good character? :wtf:

    I despair.

    You are taking that quote out of context. The judge said he was a normally a man of good character but in this case he had lost his restraint.

    This is what happens when you lose context.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, a man has sex with a passed out drunk girl in his house. He has one past conviction of battery, but otherwise a good record, and he wasn't the sort of violent, malevolent person that prowled the streets for victims (in the judge's opinion). He gets 5 years and registered as a sex offender. That actually sounds about right to me. I don't think it's going to be something he'll do again.

    There are always going to be people who protest when a rapist isn't given a life sentence or the death penalty. And, naturally, there are different degrees of rape situations -- having sex with an unconscious girl on your couch, against her consent, in a one-off moment of poor judgement isn't quite the same as a person with a long criminal history chasing down a victim in an alley, beating them savagely, raping them and leaving them bruised and bleeding in a dumpster. One's gonna get five years, the other, 25.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    In pools of experienced practitioners who applied for the job.

    What is going through the heads of people who decide all our judges are idiots on the basis of a few lines in a buzzfeed article?
    I don't think all our judges are idiots. They just don't have a gift for the lexicon.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 48:13)
    I don't think all our judges are idiots. They just don't have a gift for the lexicon.
    As long as they give the correct sentencing for the crime and judge it in a fair manner, I don't give a flying **** what they say.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    As long as they give the correct sentencing for the crime and judge it in a fair manner, I don't give a flying **** what they say.
    You're not concerned that what a judge says could reinforce the opinion of an offender that what they did was a mistake rather than a vile act of sexual abuse?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 48:13)
    You're not concerned that what a judge says could reinforce the opinion of an offender that what they did was a mistake rather than a vile act of sexual abuse?
    I read somewhere that most criminals think that they are basically decent people, so someone telling them they are or aren't a bad person probably doesn't have much of an effect anyway. I think it's more that what a judge says could put off victims from coming forward because they don't think they will get justice. That is a big issue. In this case he passed the correct sentence though so that goes a long way to alleviate his bad choice of words. He also did criticise him for not admitting he was guilty. I agree with you though, I would expect a judge to be very good with words, capable of making fine distinctions and understanding their impact.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 48:13)
    You're not concerned that what a judge says could reinforce the opinion of an offender that what they did was a mistake rather than a vile act of sexual abuse?
    It was both a mistake and a vile act. This is not an "either or" situation. Had he not done what he did, he would not be in this position. Therefore it is described as a mistake. I am not however saying this was not a vile act and you do not know the opinion of the defendant because you are not him nor have you spoken to him to ask him of his opinion. You are merely speculating.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 48:13)
    I don't think all our judges are idiots. They just don't have a gift for the lexicon.
    They've spent large parts of their lives doing public speaking. They're usually very eloquent. There's nothing to suggest that the judge in this case is an exception.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    the guy's got enough hate as it is, plus ruined future career prospects and relationships, plus eternal shame and regret

    in my opinion, 5 years is the perfect amount for him because he does still deserve some punishment
    but it's whether or not life in prison could turn him into a bad person

    I don't think he needs to be fully rehabilitated, though some moderate counselling to get back some self control and helps him come to terms with himself would be very beneficial

    but generally I have a lot of sympathy for him (and the victim too) because I can just tell he's gonna get worse than he deserves
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I see nothing wrong.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 6, 2014
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.